Viable sued over wages

List of current, former employee plaintiffs in class-action suit to grow

Rockville deaf-services company Viable has been hit with a class-action lawsuit filed by former and current employees seeking back payment of wages, interest, compensatory damages and other relief. The litigation comes not long after Viable made an agreement to be bought by a New York competitor.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit, filed Aug. 26 in a Greenbelt federal court, include Viable's former director of corporate communications, Glenn Lockhart, who left the company last month.

The lawsuit adds to the woes of Viable, which has been under a cloud since a June visit by federal investigators. Viable CEO and founder John Yeh faces a separate trial next month in Silver Spring on charges he did not pay regular wages to an employee, and others have filed complaints against Viable with the employment standards unit of the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation's Division of Labor and Industry.

The class-action lawsuit lists 17 plaintiffs, and that number was expected to grow to 42, said Nicholas Woodfield, a principal with the Washington, D.C., law firm Employment Law Group and an attorney for the plaintiffs. He said that Viable, Yeh and other officers were served with the lawsuit Sept. 1. The other Viable officers named as defendants are Mary Yeh, John Yeh's wife; and Joseph Yeh, a brother of John Yeh.

The lawsuit alleges that Viable and the officers violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as well as Maryland wage payment and other laws.

John Yeh and other Viable executives could not be reached for comment. In a recent video message on the company's Internet site, Yeh said that his "No. 1 priority throughout this difficult time is to ensure that our employees are paid and that our customers who ordered VPADs [a device that helps deaf and hard-of-hearing people communicate through video technology] are served."

Viable recently entered into a purchase agreement with Snap!VRS, a Pearl River, N.Y., video relay service company. Whether Snap!VRS will bear any responsibility in the class-action lawsuit "depends on the nature of the transaction between Snap!VRS and Viable," Woodfield said.

Maureen Ellenberger, Snap!VRS vice president of marketing, said in an email last week that the company cannot comment on pending legal matters.

"That said, Snap!VRS is committed to finalizing the acquisition of Viable over the next few months and confident that it will result in a plan that will be both fair to employees and beneficial to customers," Ellenberger said.

In a previous e-mail, she had said, Snap!VRS "has taken over payroll for current Viable employees as well as health and life insurance payments."

Raid on Viable tied to Florida investigation, suit says

In June, Viable's headquarters near the White Flint metro station were "raided" by FBI agents "in relation to an FBI investigation into Viable's relationship" with Innovative Communication Services for the Deaf, a Miami Lakes, Fla., sign language interpreting company that began a partnership with Viable earlier this year, according to the lawsuit.

The co-owners of the Florida company were arrested in June on charges of conspiracy to defraud the federal government by billing to a fund overseen by the Federal Communications Commission and administered by a nonprofit for calls that were not properly interpreted. Lockhart previously said that Viable no longer does business with the Florida company.

Soon after the visit by federal agents to Viable in June, Communication Access Center Relay Services, a Flint, Mich., nonprofit agency that Viable partnered with to bill the FCC for relay minutes, started withholding payment for relay minutes submitted by Viable, the lawsuit says. This created "an immediate cash flow problem for Viable," and in early July, the company took measures such as an "indefinite furlough" of employees in the Ellicott City and Towson call centers, the lawsuit says.

In a July 11 e-mail to Viable employees, Yeh said the company would likely not be able to meet its upcoming payroll obligations, and Lockhart confirmed that with an e-mail two days later, saying that "Viable plans to pay you for all the days and hours you put in at work as soon as possible," according to the lawsuit. Lockhart sent another e-mail July 31 to Viable employees saying the company would also not meet the payroll that was slated to be issued that same day.

In the recent video message, Yeh said that a "partner suspended payment of money the FCC had paid them for our minutes. At the time, we were operating on constricted cash flow with no reserves, and the partner's decision caused unexpected severe financial strain." He added that Viable billed the FCC through a partner because it was "not certified."

While Yeh did not name the partner, CAC is a "valuable partner in its relay service operations," according to Viable's Internet site. CAC's Web site also lists Viable as a partner. A CAC spokesman could not be reached for comment.

Woodfield said he did not know exactly why CAC started to withhold payment from Viable, or why the FBI visited Viable. But that was "neither here nor there for the sake of our lawsuit," he said.

"There are large issues that remain to be resolved with Viable," Woodfield said. "But the facts are clear that Viable and the named officers failed to meet their payment obligations to their employees."

In the Montgomery County case, Yeh faces a trial Oct. 19. The plaintiff, Mary K. Moylan of Catonsville, said that she was laid off in early July and was not paid for several weeks. Her claim was for $7,450.